El_Duderino 09 wrote: » . . . . What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?
aloyisious wrote: » There's been discussion in the Irish LGBT community about the addition of extra letters to the original 4-strong group of letters that became synonymous with queer society. The additions are Q, I and A. I see from this New York Times article that the symbol + has been added to the group in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html I can imagine that there will be a transfer of the additions to occasional use in type use here, over the limited use they already have here, and which some members of the community think is descriptively unnecessary. I have no problem with the additions except for the type-space needed to include the whole, as against LGBT which is shorter than the word queer itself. The actual use of the whole in speech would be a mouthful so I can't see the whole becoming part of slang and used in society generally. Shorter-letter groups are handier in colloquial speech and not misunderstood as to reference, unlike naff. There's even mention in print and speech of extra colours being added to the rainbow flag to be inclusive of some of the above additional letters & symbols.
aloyisious wrote: » So it might be open to the Commission to rehear the case if the couple wished to re-submit a case to it for consideration again with a degree of hindsight as to what is proper in law now.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. In the view of 5 of the Supreme Court justices (a majority(: - The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was or appeared (from comments made in the proceedings) to be motivated in the decision it made by a hostility to, or at least a dismissal of, the free exercise of religion; - When the Commission's decision was appealed to the Colorado courts, they failed to spot this or to consider it properly; - Therefore they failed to follow the correct principles in deciding this case, and their decision must be set aside. Crucially, the Supreme Court did not say that if the Commission/Court had gone about this the right way, they would have affirmed the baker's right to refuse the order for the cake. Nor did it say that they wouldn't have. This case is a precedent for saying that courts and tribunals must apply the law properly - specifically, US constitutional law regarding the free exercise of religion. But we already knew that, so this isn't a new precedent.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I didn't really understand that. Does it mean the lower court did something wrong?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Or can the supreme court decide to rule on a specific case but not on the general principle so it can't be used as precedent?
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes, although on limited grounds specific to the circumstances of the case before them, as I understand it. Neither side is getting the general statement of principle that they hoped (or feared, depending on your point of view).
aloyisious wrote: » The USSC has overturned the ruling by a State court that a baker was wrong to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. The USSC ruled that the State Court ruling affected the baker's constitutional rights.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Hi all. Since the introduction of gay marriage has come and gone I wonder what the effects have been from a Christian perspective. Lots of people opposed gay marriage for lots of reasons. So what have been the worst effects of gay marriage since its introduction?
DickSwiveller wrote: » I was hoping this would be an interesting thread in which people could discuss an interesting issue. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the insufferable new atheists who can't debate in a civil manner.
Peregrinus wrote: » It is, though. I get that the Episcopal Church of Scotland isn't established. But the Church of England - which, obviously, is a much more signficant player in global Anglicanism is established, and (if he is spared) Prince George will one day have a symbolic, but nevertheless significant, role in relation to that church. The important point here isn't that Holdwsorth is not a member of the CofE; it's that George is. And furthermore he will one day be the head of the CofE. And the CofE, as the established church in England, will be expected to celebrate his marriage. And, yeah, it would obviously create a bit of a quandary if, when that day comes, his marriage is to another man. All of which is most unfair to George. Growing up gay, if that were to be the case, would be difficult enough with it raising constitutional issues about the relationship of crown and church. Even the fact that it's a theoretical possibility leads to unpleasant, distasteful public speculation by senior churchmen about the future sexual self-identification of a four-year-old child. No, just no! I'm with Nick on this. The fact that someone might think that this boy's sexual orientation might be influential in the evolution of Anglican theology of sexuality strongly suggest that the Church of England's connection with the crown isn't healthy for the Church of England, or for the wider Anglican communion.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. Surely the fundamental problem here is not the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation; it's the fact that the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation might in any way be more influenced by this little boy's hypothetical future sexual identification than by that of any other Christian. There are serious discussions to be had about the theology of sexuality, but speculating about the future sexual identification of a particular four-year-old boy, apart from being inherently distasteful, doesn't have anything to contribute to those discussions.
smacl wrote: » Very odd behaviour to express for your preference for some else's child's sexual orientation to further your own agenda. If you were to flip it and pray that a child was not gay, no doubt you'd get labelled a homophobe. It seems like a wholly inconsiderate statement to me on more than one level.
Nick Park wrote: » True. But it does nicely illustrate the absurdity of joining Church and State.
aloyisious wrote: » We: the ultimate in deflection.
Absolam wrote: » Oh, I think we all know quite well that none of them have made any such leap at all, for reasons that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest idea of the most basic facts about the Church. I'm afraid your leap is absolutely a product of your own imagination, delivered without any consideration whatsoever for facts but rather based entirely on your own apparent need for a strawman to rail against. That was the word... strawman! I knew it would come to me if I looked at your post again
aloyisious wrote: » If you do a bit of research on the RC church positions on LGBT and homosexual people [seeing as how both are co-mingled in modern thought] being christians or Christians, i think you will find it was not a massive leap for the RC church clergy and/or it's headquarters staffers in the Vatican to make.
Absolam wrote: » I think it's a pretty massive leap to suddenly imagine that anyone would ever define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, whether they were charitable or not. It sounds a bit like an attempt to create an argument no one is offering just to kick back against it. I'm sure there's a name for that sort of thing, it just escapes me at this moment. Can you think what it might be that you were doing there?
